Quest Patent Research Corporation’s (QPRC’s) CXT Systems, Inc. campaign, which since 2018 has hit 15 retailers over patents received from Intellectual Ventures LLC (IV), has seen a number of interesting developments over the past six months. Ahead of CXT’s trial against J.C. Penney, scheduled to commence on February 18 in the Eastern District of Texas, a recently issued order on motions in limine will catch the eye of those following the debate over disclosure of third-party litigation funding. Meanwhile, a review of QPRC’s SEC filings shed light on the NPE’s possible returns on its enforcement efforts.

In August 2016, the Panel on Multidistrict Litigation centralized 14 cases involving Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC (d/b/a MTel, LLC), including three declaratory judgment actions, for pretrial proceedings before District Judge Leonard Stark in Delaware. Several of the cases were transferred in from the Eastern District of Texas, including a case filed against Cox Communications. In that suit, before transfer, Cox filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction over it in Texas. (Judge Stark recently granted that motion, dismissing the action against Cox as well as a second case, against Bright House Networks). MTel has now responded with a new case filed against Cox (1:17-cv-00463), asserting the same three wireless telecommunications patents (5,590,403; 5,659,891; 5,915,210) from the earlier case.

Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC (d/b/a MTel, LLC) has sued Cellco (Verizon Wireless) (2:16-cv-01324) in the wake of significant setbacks at trial, accusing the company of infringing four wireless communication patents (5,581,804; 5,590,403; 5,659,891; 5,915,210). Verizon is alleged to infringe through its LTE network and through the provision of devices that use certain wireless connection and transmission standards, including MIMO (multiple-input multiple-output) and OFDM (orthogonal frequency division multiplexing). MTel’s newest complaint comes after two unfavorable jury verdicts earlier this year, with findings of non-infringement issued for BlackBerry (3:12-cv-01652) in July (with respect to the ‘804 patent) and HTC (2:13-cv-00948) in September (of the 5,754,946 patent). However, the impact of those verdicts was blunted by settlements reached with both defendants prior to the entry of judgment: the BlackBerry case has been stayed since September after the parties reached an agreement, while the HTC case was dismissed on December 6.